Sterilization; a case to be made?

A couple of nights ago my wife and I visited good friends of ours that we met in the foster care training class we took. These friends recently received a long-term placement of a two-year-old. This child is number eleven of his biological brothers and sisters. His biological mother who is thirty-six has been a self-admitted prostitute and drug addict all of her adult life. This particular child was removed emergently after a domestic violence situation.

My experiences in EMS have led me into some very desperate situations for children. I’ve seen children who live in squalor; their education, healthcare, and nutrition being ignored because mom and dad (IF there is a dad involved) are too occupied with other things and/or spending the public aid that they receive on things they consider higher priorities then their children.

In our foster care training, we learned about how despairing it can be for children and the various ways that children behave as a result. We heard horrific stories about hopeless scenarios in which children are victimized while the parents neglect and/or abuse themselves and their children.

Our foster care systems are severely over-burdened and our foster care workers and advocates are severely out numbered. Many of the children placed into the system, although tried to keep together, are forced to be separated because of space issues. Families are broken, lives are ruined, and children are, at best, damaged.

So what’s my point? Well let me just say that I don’t have any of the details worked out and I know there will be all kinds of arguments for and against my point.

There is a strong argument to be made on many levels for a type of forced sterilization of both men and women who repeatedly demonstrate a willful and reckless disregard for themselves and their children. Not only do you have the abuse and neglect of the child to consider, which arguably is enough, but you also have all the expenses imposed on the taxpayers in resulting social programs.

I would want the sterilization to be reversible for those moms and dads who get their lives together. I am not talking about doing anything like this for responsible parents and so the obvious question, among others, is who sets and what would be the standard? Perhaps, if a man or a woman is arrested and convicted a given number of times, that would result in a sterilization scenario for one. Or, if you have two children who are dependant upon public aid for more than a given amount of time.

As I said before, I don’t have all the details worked out. I am also not talking about doing anything like murdering the unborn fetus. This is simply a measure to prevent the pregnancy all together. I do know for sure the damage that is caused (because I have witnessed it) to children and the kind of financial expenses that are involved when you start to deal with the social programs, the counseling, the legal expenses, the cost of the deviant behavior of the adolescent child and so forth.

I realize that there are all kinds of civil rights arguments here, but there could be so many benefits to a program such as this. The greatest of which would be sparing the innocent children a life of torment, heartache, and neglect. This would be extremely controversial, but I am curious…what do you guys think about something like this? Would you support or oppose a program of sterilization if the details were right and if so, what would those standards have to be?

Adendum

well I knew there would be civil rights head bangers, but my argument of 'for the children' still stands.They need our help, they need the change, and the agencies who provide for their protection cannot meet the demand.

As for a person who wasn't successfully reversed...they should have been more productive members of society in the first place. Just because you've been cut (vasectomy) does not mean your body stops producing sperm. You could easily remove the sperm from the carrier and implant it into the female. That could be a fail safe method of last resort.

I feel strongly about a need to stop the increasing numbers of pregnancies to men and women who have a history of being on welfare, using drugs, prostituting, and neglecting and/or abusing their offspring. Fixing the problem before the child is born could do a lot to alter positively the course of the rest of our broken systems. No kids lives to ruin means less irresponsible adults in the future means less need for unconstitutional social programs. I think that, if done properly, this single act and enforcement could change the America for the positive.

If not sterilization, then what else? Give some examples of how your idea could change the status quo and still reduce the demand on foster kids and workers, and prevent child abuse or neglect? It's easy to sit back and pick apart someone elses ideas, but I'd like to hear your attempt at a resolution.

Perform the Action, the Feeling Will Follow

While driving home from St. Louis a couple of days ago, I tuned into a talk show. I’ve turned into an old person. Do you remember being a child and driving with some adult who refused to listen to anything but AM talk radio? Much to my family’s chagrin, that’s pretty much me. But I digress…

A guest called the program to tell the host how much he loved his now pregnant wife and how happy their marriage of three years has been. His problem? It seems he is afraid to make love to his wife now that she is pregnant. He had trouble articulating his reasoning, but short answer is, it stemmed from the fact that she has a baby inside her and he doesn’t want to hurt the infant and that fear has quelled his desire.

It took the host several minutes to get to the root of the problem and it seems that this young mans fear is not that uncommon a problem. She reassured him that unless his wife’s physician has indicated a medical reason not to have sex that doing so would not jeopardize the welfare of the unborn baby.

Among other advice, she made the following decree…perform the action and the feeling will follow. I’ve been brooding over that one statement since I heard it.

I have a kind of fixation with the moral decline of America and the world in general, if you haven’t noticed already. For the purposes of this post, we’ll take the subject of marriage again. I have stated many times in the past that marriage has become more a matter of convenience then of commitment. By and large, it has become for as long as our love shall last and not for as long as we both shall live.

It is my estimation that too much in this world happens based on a particular feeling at a particular moment in time. A person’s feelings tend to vacillate over time. This notion of performing the action and the feeling will follow seems, to me, to apply very much in the subject of marriage on many levels.

The Advaitin philosopher Chandrashekhara Bharati Swaminah put it this way, “by exercising your free-will in the past, you brought on the resultant fate.” Or the Pubbekatahetuvada teaches, the belief that all happiness and suffering arise from previous action. Ever not been in the mood until you became engaged in the act???

Don’t misunderstand me, I am not advocating an if it feels good, do it society. That would be the reverse of the point of this. If one performs a particular action then a particular feeling will eventually occur. The same could also be true of immoral acts and negative effects, I would postulate.

My hope for my epiphany concerning this statement is to encourage you the next time you become apathetic. Make yourself perform the action, even if you don’t want to, and the feeling will eventually come. This is an area of my marriage that I need to concentrate on at times.

History of Medical Symbols

Emergency care in the field has been rendered in different forms since history began to be recorded. The Bible includes the Old Testament account of the Israelites being bitten by poisonous snakes. (Numbers 21:6-9) God commanded Moses to make a bronze snake and mount it on a pole. Then, anyone bitten must only look at the bronze snake and they would be healed.

Some credit this account as the basis for the United States' EMS symbol, the Star of Life, where a single snake wrapped around a pole is seen in the center of a blue, six-barred cross. The six sides represent the six essential functions of EMS:

1. Detection
2. Reporting
3. Response
4. On Scene Care
5. Care in Transit
6. Transfer to Definitive Care

However, others attribute this snake symbol to the Greek mythological figure Asclepius, the son of Apollo. Asclepius was trained as a healer by Cheron the Centaur. Once, when he consulted a serpent about a very difficult patient, the snake coiled around his staff in order to speak with him as an equal. Later, Asclepius was slewn by Zeus, but because of his remarkable healing ability, people began to worship in his temples. Eventually, Zeus brought him back to life as a god.

The caduceus is a winged staff with two snakes wrapped around it. It was an ancient astrological symbol of commerce and is associated with the Greek god Hermes, the messenger for the gods, conductor of the dead and protector of merchants and thieves. It was originally a herald's staff, sometimes with wings, with two white ribbons attached. The ribbons eventually evolved into snakes.

In some cases, depictions of the Greek kerykeion can be radically different from that of the traditional caduceus (as in the picture at right). These representations will feature the two snakes atop the wand (rod), crossed to create a circle with the heads of the snakes resembling horns. In this form, it looks remarkably similar to the symbol for the planet Mercury — while Mercury the god is the Roman name for Hermes, who carries the kerykeion, or caduceus. The Greek messenger goddess Iris also carried the caduceus. The basic power of the Caduceus is the primal power to heal or harm.

In the seventh century, the caduceus came to be associated with a precursor of medicine, based on the Hermetic astrological principles of using the planets and stars to heal the sick. As a symbol for medicine, the caduceus is often used interchangeably with the Rod of Asclepius (single snake, no wings), although learned opinion prefers the Rod of Asclepius, reserving the caduceus for representing commerce. Historically, the two astrological symbols had distinct meanings in alchemical and astrological principles.

Some medical organizations join the serpents of the caduceus with rungs to suggest a DNA double-helix. It has also been suggested that the caduceus derives from the treatment for Guinea Worm disease, which requires sufferers to pull the worms out of their legs by slowly, over a period of many days, winding the worm around a stick which is twisted a little more each day to draw the worm out. It is also said that doctors would wrap the extruding parasite around a stick over the course of weeks or months, and the result was worn as an indicator of the doctor's competence, although this suggestion seems to be more represented by the Rod of Asclepius.

The symbol's origins are thought to date to as early as 2600 BC in Mesopotamia, and there are several references to a caduceus-like symbol in the Bible, namely in Numbers 21:4–9, and 2 Kings 18:4. During the Exodus, Moses was instructed by God to fashion a pole upon which he was to position a serpent made of bronze; when looked upon, this Nehushtan, as it was called in Hebrew, would spare the lives of the Israelites stricken by venomous snakebites. The intent was that people would look upward and be reminded to pray to God, but eventually the meaning was forgotten and this symbol was apparently worshiped by the Hebrew people until the reign of Hezekiah as described in 2 Kings 18:4.

N.J. Governor Signs Gay Civil Unions Law

TRENTON, N.J. - New Jersey's governor signed legislation Thursday giving gay couples all the rights and responsibilities of marriage allowed under state law — but not the title.

First, let me state emphatically that I am opposed to the homosexual lifestyle. I think it is blatantly against God’s law for man and, in fact, sinful. Now that my disclaimer is out of the way, let me convey my off the cuff response to this article.

My initial response to this law and laws like it, is how do you define who is in a committed relationship and who is not? I do not support gay people marrying, but if they don’t go through the motions of a legal union, then isn’t there a fundamental problem defining who can claim union status and who can’t?

Federal law does not recognize civil unions between gay couples, so any contract between such couples grants them no federal benefit. I do worry, however, since this is the fifth state in the nation to grant such state rights, that if conservative moral citizens don’t start lobbying against this kind of deviance they will become the minorities. We must rise up and respectfully, lawfully express our discontent with laws like this. Laws like this are passed, because the majority do not see the inherit danger forming behind the scenes.

We must defend the principles and morals that we hold dear and sadly, we’re losing precious strongholds slowly. Take steps to promote family values. Contact your lawmakers, protest peacefully, and join movements like the American Family Association or Focus on the Family. The homosexuals are successfully taking these steps and we must counter or the future will be vastly immoral.

A Young Sailor Inspires Change

The year was 1996, and I was relatively new to the submarine way of life. Still in Sonar School, and not yet assigned to a boat, a discussion among the different classes arose concerning possible changes to the submarine working uniforms. Like the Navy SEALs, the submarine fleet is an elite group. It comprises the top 1% of the top 10% of the navy. Submariners have silently done their jobs for years and the discussion at the time was based around distinguishing submariners, like other elitist groups, with different uniforms; specifically, blue camouflage BDUs.

It didn’t take much convincing for me. No one thinks the navy bell bottom pants, the light blue button up shirts (made from the same material as prison issued uniforms), and the goofy white sailor hat was more outdated and demoralizing then I did. They've been around and unchanged since the 1940's. I quickly became an advocate for change, specifically for the BDUs and for a beret type hat.

In my haste and outspokenness, I decided to pen a letter addressed to the Chief of Naval Operations. I would write it and mail it directly to him lobbying for such a uniform change. In the military there is a chain of command, however, if you direct something above your superior’s head, by regulation, it must reach its intended destination. The CNO is the highest-ranking officer of the Navy and so it stood to reason that I would address my letter to him.

Admittedly, I never presumed that it would ever be read by the CNO. After all, who was I? I was just a Seaman Recruit; a lowly E-1. Several weeks later, I received two replies. The first, a very pleasant response from the CNO stating how much he enjoyed receiving my letter and understood my position. The second, a very matter of fact letter from the Chief Petty Officer of the Navy educating me on the proper use of the chain of command.

Not to my surprise, nothing ever became of my petition; that is, until now. Given the vast amount of influence I convey, the Navy initiated a Navy wide survey concerning the contentment of present uniforms and the types of uniforms they would like to have. The survey results, also not to my surprise, communicated what I had so articulately expressed to the CNO years earlier.

The Navy Times announced December 14, 2006 that Navy officials have announced the Navy’s new working and service uniforms will start to be available in some Navy exchanges by June 2008 at the earliest.

Though this change does not accomplish the mission of distinguishing the submariner as an elitist division, it will prove to be a great boost to Navy morale. It’s a change that is long overdue.

Urban Legends

Almost nothing irritates me more then receiving forwarded emails about stories that are untrue. To me, it’s comparable to irresponsible journalism. Today I received an email about the heroics of Lee Marvin, Captain Kangaroo, and Mr. Rogers. It’s the stuff of Hollywood masterpieces. The only problem is, it is all complete fiction.

In an effort to quell the urban legends, I have decided to address the characters of this email here, on my blog. It begins like this:

THE MYTH:

YOU NEVER KNOW WITH THE QUIET ONES.

In a time when many Hollywood stars served their country in the armed forces often in rear echelon posts where they were carefully protected, only to be trotted out to perform for the cameras in war bond promotions, Lee Marvin was a genuine hero. He won the Navy Cross at Iwo Jima. There is only one higher naval award... the Medal of Honor.

If that is a surprising comment on the true character of the man, he credits his sergeant with an even greater show of bravery.

Dialogue from The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson: His guest was Lee Marvin.

Johnny said, "Lee, I'll bet a lot of people are unaware that you were a Marine in the initial landing at Iwo Jima...and that during the course of that action you earned the Navy Cross and were severely wounded."

"Yeah, yeah... I got shot square in the bottom and they gave me the cross for securing a hot spot about halfway up Suribachi. Bad thing about getting shot up on a mountain, is guys getting shot hauling you down. But, Johnny, at Iwo, I served under the bravest man I ever knew... We both got the cross the same day, but what he did for his Cross made mine look cheap in comparison. That dumb guy actually stood up on Red Beach and directed his troops to move forward and get the hell off the beach. Bullets flying by, with mortar rounds landing everywhere and he stood there as the main target of gunfire so that he could get his men to safety. He did this on more than one occasion because his men's safety was more important than his own life,” Marvin recalled.

“Johnny, I'm not lying, Sergeant Keeshan was the bravest man I ever knew. The Sergeant's name is Bob Keeshan. You and the world know him as Captain Kangaroo."

THE TRUTH:

This story almost complete fabrication.

Lee Marvin and Bob Keeshan did both serve in the Marines.

Before his death in January, 2004, we checked with Bob Keeshan, who was living in Vermont, and he said he never served at Iwo Jima, was not presented with the Navy Cross and, in fact, never saw combat.

There is no record of Lee Marvin at Iwo Jima or winning the Navy Cross. According to a biography that we have on file at TruthOrFiction.com, Marvin did see a lot of action in the Pacific participating in the invasions at Kwajalein and Eniwetok and was wounded in Saipan, for which he was awarded the Purple Heart. Marvin is buried in Arlington Cemetery.

THE MYTH:

On another note, there was this wimpy little man (who recently passed away) on PBS, gentle and quiet. Mr. Rogers is another of those you would least suspect of being anything but what he now portrays to our youth. Nevertheless, Mr. Rogers was a U.S. Navy Seal; combat-proven in Vietnam with over twenty-five confirmed kills to his name. He wore a long-sleeved sweater on TV, to cover the many tattoos on his forearm and biceps. He was a master in small arms and hand-to-hand combat, able to disarm or kill in a heartbeat.

After the war, Mr. Rogers became an ordained Presbyterian minister and therefore a pacifist. Vowing never to harm another human, he dedicated the rest of his life to trying to help lead children on the right path in life. He hid away the tattoos and his past life and won our hearts with his quiet wit and charm.

America's real heroes don't flaunt what they did; they quietly go about their day-to-day lives, doing what they do best. They earned our respect and the freedoms that we all enjoy.

THE TRUTH:

This same rumor has often been applied to boyish country singer-songwriter John Denver (among others), and it's just as false when told of Fred Rogers. Not only did Fred Rogers never serve in the military, there are no gaps in his career when he could conceivably have served in the military — he went straight into college after high school, he moved directly into TV work after graduating college, and his breaks from television work were devoted to attending the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary (he was ordained as a Presbyterian minister in 1963) and the University of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Child Development. Moreover, Fred Rogers was born in 1928 and was therefore too old to have enlisted in the armed services by the time of America's military involvement in Vietnam.

He wore long-sleeved shirts and sweaters on his show to maintain an air of formality — although he was friendly with the children in his viewing audience and talked to them on their own level, he was most definitely an authority figure on a par with parents and teachers (he was Mister Rogers to them, after all, not Fred), and his choice of dress was intended to establish and foster that relationship.

The Measure of A Country

In January 2003, during his address to British ambassadors in London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair observed, "First, we should remain the closest ally of the US, and as allies influence them to continue broadening their agenda. We are the ally of the US not because they are powerful, but because we share their values. I am not surprised by anti-Americanism; but it is a foolish indulgence. For all their faults, and all nations have them, the US are a force for good; they have liberal and democratic traditions of which any nation can be proud. I sometimes think it is a good rule of thumb to ask of a country: are people trying to get into it or out of it? It's not a bad guide to what sort of country it is."

Later someone anonymously noted, "Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you: Jesus Christ and the American G. I. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom."

Then and Now!

Scenario: Jack pulls into school parking lot with rifle in gun rack.

1973: Vice Principal comes over, takes a look at Jack's rifle, goes to his car and gets his to show Jack.

2006: School goes into lockdown, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.

Scenario: Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school.

1973: Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up best friends. Nobody goes to jail, nobody arrested, nobody expelled.

2006: Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark. Charge them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it.

Scenario: Jeffrey won't be still in class, disrupts other students.

1973: Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by Principal. Sits still in class.

2006: Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. School gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a disability.

Scenario: Billy breaks a window in his father's car and his Dad gives him a spanking.

1973: Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman.

2006: Billy's Dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy removed to foster care and joins a gang. Billy's sister is told by state psychologist that she remembers being abused herself and their Dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has affair with psychologist.

Scenario: Mark gets a headache and takes some headache medicine to school.

1973: Mark shares headache medicine with Principal out on the smoking dock.

2006: Police called, Mark expelled from school for drug violations. Car searched for drugs and weapons.

Scenario: Mary turns up pregnant.

1973: 5 High School Boys leave town. Mary does her senior year at a special school for expectant mothers.

2006: Middle School Counselor calls Planned Parenthood, who notifies the ACLU. Mary is driven to the next state over and gets an abortion without her parent's consent or knowledge. Mary given condoms and told to be more careful next time.

Scenario: Pedro fails high school English.

1973: Pedro goes to summer school, passes English, goes to college.

2006: Pedro's cause is taken up by state democratic party. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against state school system and Pedro's English teacher. English banned from core curriculum. Pedro given diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he can't speak English.

Scenario: Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from the 4th of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle, blows up a red ant bed.

1973: Ants die.

2006: BATF, Homeland Security, FBI called. Johnny charged with domestic terrorism, FBI investigates parents, siblings removed from home, computers confiscated, Johnny's Dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.

Who Started Christmas?

Author Unknown

A woman was Christmas shopping with her two children. After many hours of walking down row after row of toys and after hours of hearing both her children asking for everything they saw on those many shelves, she finally made it to the store elevator with her two children in hand.

She was feeling what so many of us feel during the holiday season time of the year, getting that perfect gift for every single person on our shopping list, overwhelming pressure to go to every party, every housewarming, taste all the holiday food and treats, making sure we don't forget anyone on our card list, and the pressure of making sure we respond to everyone who sent us a card.

Finally the elevator doors opened revealing a crowd in the elevator cab. She pushed her way in and dragged her two kids and all her bags of stuff in with her .

As the doors closed she couldn't take it anymore and blurted out, "Whoever started this whole Christmas thing should be found, strung up, and shot."

From the back of the car, a quiet calm voice responded, "Don't worry, we've already crucified Him." The rest of the trip down was so quiet you could have heard a pin drop.

Don't forget this year to keep the One who started this whole Christmas thing in your every thought, deed, purchase, and word. If we all would, just think how much better this world would be.

Jesus is the reason for the season. Wise people still seek Him.

Santa May Appeal To Children...BANNED!

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) -- A beer distributor says Maine is being a Scrooge by barring it from selling a beer with a label depicting Santa Claus enjoying a pint of brew.

In a complaint filed in federal court, Shelton Brothers accuses the Maine Bureau of Liquor Enforcement of censorship for denying applications for labels for Santa's Butt Winter Porter and two other beers it wants to sell in Maine...

...The lawsuit, filed Thursday, contends the state's action violates the First Amendment by censoring artistic expression...

...But the state says it's within its rights. The label with Santa might appeal to children, said Maine State Police Lt. Patrick Fleming. The other two labels are considered inappropriate because they show bare-breasted women....

...The lawsuit was brought by the Maine Civil Liberties Union, which says the beer labels are entitled to First Amendment protection...

Read the entire article

The state maintains this is like the Joe Camel thing. It may appeal to children. I am not sure exactly how I feel about the violation of First Amendment rights in this case and whether they have actually occurred; you have to draw a line somewhere.

What really bothers me, is that a company, any company, would take such an important religious holiday and make such a mockery of it. True, Christmas, though Christian in origin, has become a secular holiday for many, for many still it has a religious sacredness.

Then there is St. Nicholas, aka Santa Claus. He’s been widely forgotten as the Catholic saint and has become almost exclusively a childhood fairytale character. I don’t know of any marketing strategy elsewhere that portrays St. Nick as a boozing exhibitionist.

It seems that marketing of this nature against this religious holiday could damage children and disrespect the season we celebrate the birth of Christ. It is for this reason I lean with the side of the state in this matter despite the fact that both sides could do compelling arguments for their civil rights. This free speech thing can just go too far, as in this case.